We should be appreciative of Federer though, because we will never see anything like him again. The fact he can still compete for slams ever after the erosion of his physical skills is really a greater testament to the natural talent he has than the period of time when he was dominating the tour.

Agassi won Wimbledon in 92 and 'big servers' Rafter, Courier, Becker, Pioline all got to finals. Some baseline hitters actually did pretty well. Pete was just too good.

As for the public was getting bored, not this public here. Ivanisevic-Rafter is still the most loved final in a poll by the BBC and 2001 the favourite recent tournament.

As for that, take the last line out. It's all about athleticism and fitness now. Ball striking ability matters little. Look at the Nadal-Nalbandian match in the once fast US Open a couple months back- Nalby painted the corners over and over and over and over and yet the ball somehow was still coming back on a tournament that was once fast. That's how homogenization has destroyed the game.

Yes, but both Becker and Agassi were complete all round players, not just big serve like some... Clay does add a bit of spice to the year but I feel there are far too many clay tournaments and not enough grass, Clay does'nt reward the better TENNIS skilled player, more the cardio/strength brute.

Agassi won Wimbledon in 92 and 'big servers' Rafter, Courier, Becker, Pioline all got to finals. Some baseline hitters actually did pretty well. Pete was just too good.

As for the public was getting bored, not this public here. Ivanisevic-Rafter is still the most loved final in a poll by the BBC and 2001 the favourite recent tournament.

As for that, take the last line out. It's all about athleticism and fitness now. Ball striking ability matters little. Look at the Nadal-Nalbandian match in the once fast US Open a couple months back- Nalby painted the corners over and over and over and over and yet the ball somehow was still coming back on a tournament that was once fast. That's how homogenization has destroyed the game.

Yes, but both Becker and Agassi were complete all round players, not just big serve like some... Clay does add a bit of spice to the year but I feel there are far too many clay tournaments and not enough grass, Clay does'nt reward the better TENNIS skilled player, more the cardio/strength brute. Players who rely on the clay season only are nothing but dirt rats

Clay is boring. After 2 tournaments, it's just tiresome and the season is so predictable it's sad.

This is very true. One think please though my man... get rid of that stupid picture of Andy with that horid flag, the only reason he is holding it is because it's forced on him for the davis cup team GB thing etc, I don't think Murray is a pro union type of guy - he always flys our saltire on his wrists and the flag on his back, I'v heard that he is a SNP guy ALBA GO BRAGH !

merryploughbhoy is right
The clay court season is a bit boring and I think it's too long peroid of the season
The indoor tennis can produce some good tennis (I prefer REGULAR hard courts)and it's not true that there're no rallies (if you can, watch matches now in stockholm of Nalby, Dimitrov and Tomic who are very offensive players and play indoors rallies till someone goes to the net)

Agassi won Wimbledon in 92 and 'big servers' Rafter, Courier, Becker, Pioline all got to finals. Some baseline hitters actually did pretty well. Pete was just too good.

As for the public was getting bored, not this public here. Ivanisevic-Rafter is still the most loved final in a poll by the BBC and 2001 the favourite recent tournament.

As for that, take the last line out. It's all about athleticism and fitness now. Ball striking ability matters little. Look at the Nadal-Nalbandian match in the once fast US Open a couple months back- Nalby painted the corners over and over and over and over and yet the ball somehow was still coming back on a tournament that was once fast. That's how homogenization has destroyed the game.

Excellent post!!! I could not agree more. Players should be rewarded for hitting a series of good shots and a good solid volley. Slowing it down even further just causes players to get passed or hit nearly impossible volleys and that only encourages boring baseline grinding rallies. I like some variety in the match and in the game of tennis. I don't want to see all serving or all first-strike tennis either though. It's all about having a variety of speeds and surfaces which allow for many types of player to succeed. Indoor tennis though is great because it removes concerns about sunburn, heat exhaustion, wind, rain, etc. This allows for more precision and more aggressive play. Also the atmosphere in an indoor arena can be fantastic! I think the players need to have a few months to play in the fall without having to deal with the heat and the unpredictable weather. Not liking indoor tennis just seems weird to me.

I won't enter this discussion because ive never come across such "great" minds. Minds that can't make the distinction between facts (a cow weighs more than a mouse) and matteres of taste (do you prefer mozart or beethoven?).

There is nothing to argue. NOTHING. All you can say is I like or I don't like indoor tennis and then give your PERSONAL reason for why you like it or why you don't.